Movie News

Friday, August 8, 2014

Chris's Review: ‘Boyhood’ is admirable, but falls short of perceived greatness

Late in Richard Linklater’s episodic and ambitious new film, Boyhood,
the main character, Mason, asks his father, “So, what’s the point?” To
which his laissez-faire father laughs and replies, “What’s the point? I
sure as shit don’t know. But neither does anyone else. We’re all just
winging it. The good thing is you’re feeling stuff.”

As if explaining life and the film all in one line, that is a pretty
neat and tidy way to tie up and add meaning on to a grand, yet scattered
film. And for the most part, it works within the confines of the film,
and against my better judgment, actually provides a quasi-satisfying
ending.

But Linklater does not stop there. Soon after, there is another
scene, this time between Mason and his mother. Instead of “the point” of
life, they talk about the “moments” of life – graduation, marriage,
death, etc. Conveniently, the film itself, which follows a young boy and
his family through 13 years of his life, is also about the moments of
life. Despite the fact that most of the film’s “moments” are on the
smaller scale, this second over-explanatory ending is a little too on
the nose.

But again, Linklater does not stop there. A third ending, this one
less defined, follows Mason on his first day of college as he moves in,
meets his roommate, and heads out a wilderness hike with his new
friends. He has got his whole life ahead of him and he has a lot of
potential. Maybe a sequel?

The three endings do not ruin the movie, in fact, they are just indicative of the film itself. As a cinematic experiment, Boyhood is big, bold, and more than admirable, but as film experience, it is casual, undefined, and stretched too thin.

One of Boyhood’s most endearing qualities, though, is that
casualness. It gives the film a sense of realism that it so desperately
wants to achieve. But the film, as ambitious as it seems, is rather
low-key and mostly conventional. Not much noteworthy happens (which is
not a problem in and of itself), just a kid growing up, dealing with
issues most kids these days face (divorce, bullies, nagging parents,
dating, etc.) And while the film does find more than a few impactful
moments, it is meandering and languorous – perhaps intentionally, like
life itself. Like some of Linklater’s more acclaimed works, the film
relies on dialogue rather than action. And when drama does occur
on-screen, it feels forced. The film stretches on for nearly 3 hours,
but surprisingly never feels it. Again, it is that casual nature that
saves it.

As a time capsule, the film is also interesting to watch, if for
nothing else, to watch its characters age – and not just its
coming-of-age star, Ellar Coltrane, but also its biggest star, Ethan Hawke (and
his ever evolving facial hair, from cool goatee to off-putting old man
mustache). Filled with an array of decade old artifacts, the film’s
nostalgia is more genuine because it is real, rather than manufactured
after the fact.

Following a character for 12 years as he comes of age is nothing new
in cinema, but doing it with one actor over 12 actual years is
extraordinary – its beyond remarkable. That in itself is something to
marvel at here, but it is not enough to make it a great film – a great
idea, solid execution, but just a good film in the end.